My two favorite takes so far on John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for his running mate:

Stephen Colbert accuses nay-sayers of missing the significance of the moment: “A lot of people are saying that Sarah Palin is being used as a cheap political ploy. That is such petty cynicism. This is historic. For the first time in America, a woman has reached the highest levels of being used as a cheap political ploy.”

See his entire analysis here:

And Maureen Dowd is just happy that while reporting from the campaign trail, she can still indulge one of her “guilty pleasures”: watching “a vacuously spunky and generically sassy chick flick” — even if she already knows how this one is going to end.

In a more semi-serious analysis, Gail Collins yesterday summarized the big insult:

Over the last week, we have heard over and over and over that Tuesday was the anniversary of the day women got the right to vote. (They got it when a state representative in Tennessee, where the House was split on the ratification issue, changed his vote because his mother wrote him a letter telling him to shape up. That’s a story that I would love to get into, but, unfortunately, right now we have Sarah Palin to deal with.)

After that big moment of enfranchisement, women went through a long period in the desert where they had the vote but not much else. Then came the great revolutions of the 1970s, when all the assumptions about the natural divisions between the sexes were challenged. During that era, women could be excited and moved by symbolic candidacies that promised a better, more inclusive future, like Shirley Chisholm’s presidential race and Geraldine Ferraro’s presence on the Democratic national ticket.

This year, Hillary Clinton took things to a whole new level. She didn’t run for president as a symbol but as the best-prepared candidate in the Democratic pack. Whether you liked her or not, she convinced the nation that women could be qualified to both run the country and be commander in chief. That was an enormous breakthrough, and Palin’s nomination feels, in comparison, like a step back.

If she’s only on the ticket to try to get disaffected Clinton supporters to cross over, it’s a bad choice. Joe Biden may already be practicing his drop-dead line for the vice-presidential debate: “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.”

As we wait for Barack Obama to announce his vice-presidential running mate, everyone is having a bit too much fun with the fact that anyone can sign up to be “the first to know” — through a text message (text “VP” to 62262) or e-mail sent directly from the Obama campaign.

Our friend Deanna Zandt over at GRITtv introduced me today to the concept of “rickrolling” (as in Rick Astley — you gotta follow that link) and the variety of fake Twitter and text messages that purport have The Answer.

And Mary Schmich of the Chicago Tribune confesses that the whole process is making her feel like she is back in high school:

I think it would be totally awesome if John texted me his vp choice too. But John has made minus-zero effort to court me the newfangled way.

Is it my fault John doesn’t text? He’ll probably name his vp at something totally 20th Century, like a news conference. Don’t blame me if he’s not a good communicator.

Barack, see, he understands my needs. He makes me feel special. He let me know he wanted my cell number. Wanted it bad. I was, like, totally flattered.

And after I texted him my info—btw, his number’s 62262—he texted a reply:

“Welcome to Obama Mobile. You will now be one of the 1st notified when the VP candidate is selected. Text HELP for help. Std charges apply. Please forward.”

Charges? I was not thrilled to see this relationship was going to cost me $$ but whatever. Life is not a freebie Valentine. At least he wrote back.

So who is it going to be? John Lumea over at Huffington Post argues for some unconventional VP wisdom.